Forum:Two sentences to solidify our values
:Copied from User_talk:Chadlupkes#Comment The challenge It is less important what your take on this or another political issue is. It is more important for others to know why you take this or other stand. Could you write in two sentences the reasons behind your political choices? Keeping it into two sentences is important, because - as old people used to say - if someone cannot present his point in two sentences, that person is lying or does not know what he is taking about. From my personal experience, I remember that when applying this rule to myself, I changed my views many times when forced to explain in two sentences reasons behind them. --HAK 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Chadlupkes takes the challenge :Two sentances, eh? :1. I believe that people are basically good, and need opportunity to reach their potential. :2. I believe that as a global society, we must work towards more cooperation and community, rather than more competition and individualism. :Does that work? Chadlupkes 00:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::Good. Let me tell the message I received ::1. You believe that an individual is not responsible for his or her success in life. ::2. Your positive goals are foggy as you define them by vague, wishful thinking terms like “cooperation” and “community”. ::The idea behind my original posting was to find out your reasoning behind political choices you made. I believe that “two sentences” approach is the best method to expose inconsistencies in given political standing.--HAK 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :::1. Success does not depend exclusively on individual responsibility, but also on opportunity (I would also add circumstance). :::2. I'm not sure I understand your point here, HAK. Any reasonable long term goal for something as complex as human society must be vague. My impression is that this point is more an attack than an rational argument. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::::Answering to the attack comment. I am trying here a method of discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method that did not work too well for its inventor either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates. ::::Socrates said: "life without examination is not worth living". ::::Not all of us at this forum can be right all the time on all the issues. Maybe I am missing something; however, for me the whole sense of this exercise is in proving others wrong, and being ready to accept my errors as well. In other words, unless I feel that I can prove someone wrong, I do not see any reason to open my mouth. The same, I expect to be attacked as well. BTW, what is wrong with this approach?--HAK 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::Ok, let's tear this apart. ::No, I don't believe that "an individual is not responsible for his or her success in life". I believe that we are all responsible for ourselves. However, I don't control which jobs are open when I'm looking for work, I'm responsible for choosing the best of the available jobs and working hard to get that job and to do good work when I do. I'm not responsible for growing the fruits and vegetables that I eat, but I am responsible for choosing the best of what is made available in order to increase my health and well being. And I consider it to be a good choice to purchase locally grown organic foods, because those are better for me and they help my local community prosper. My responsibility to myself must include a sense of responsibility for my family, my community, my country and my world, and an understanding of what effect my choices have on all of those levels is necessary to make the best choices for all. ::Cooperation and Community are not foggy, vague or wishful thinking. They are a fundamental reality of our culture, and are necessary for the healthy function of society. We don't go out with swords ready to kill anyone who dares to think that they can get the Christmas Present that our screaming 5 year old is wanting, we plan and live our lives so that our needs are met in such a way that nobody gets hurt and everyone gets what they need. My needs beyond food, water and shelter are a need for a society that doesn't foster violence and doesn't cause me or my children harm. And I'm willing to cooperate with other people in my society so that Red lights mean I stop for other cars and green lights mean that cars coming in the other direction stop for me. Without that fundamental level of understanding, society would disintegrate. ::Your answers tell me a lot about your own motivations and values. You seem to believe that individualism is more important than community, because you dismiss community as wishful thinking. What are your two sentances? Chadlupkes 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC) HAK gives an obvious answer Chadlupkes’ asking for my two sentences arrives after the presentation of his political credo. Therefore, I assume that he expects two sentences defining my political believes. The problem is that I have none. When looking at political concepts, or when seeking solutions to social problems, I reach back to the fundamental values: 1. A person has inalienable right to pursue happiness freely. 2. This freedom should not be limited, unless it impairs freedoms of others, their security, or private property. In reaching back to these values, I am not much original, as those are the fundamentals of the political system here. Terms like “cooperation” or “society” imply some rules defining interactions between individuals. In other words, when using these terms, Chadlupkes assumes certain, undisclosed to us set of limitations of freedoms of the individual. If he disclosed those limitations of freedom, he would be using my approach, and would not need to refer to more general terms. In my approach, I look for justifications of the necessity of taking away some freedoms of an individual. In Chadlupkes approach, there is an assumption that both of us have agreed on acceptable limitations of freedoms of individuals that constitute a society. Terms like “cooperation” or “society” are handy shortcuts in political discussions, under condition that there is a consensus about acceptable limits of individuals’ freedoms. However, those general terms tend to gain some baggage, and eventually in most instances, they become useless as a reference point in political discussions, as they mean different things to different people. In the time of crisis, when society has difficulty in agreeing on certain policies, using general terms is frustrating and leads to stalemates or lame compromises. Health care or immigration policy, are good examples. The only way to overcome an impasse is by returning to fundamental values. In this sense, agreeing on the very basic values can be a starting point here. As political ideas will be put in front of us, we can measure them up to the fundamental values. Furthermore, different participants in this discussion may have different fundamental values, and build systems of political concepts around them. --HAK 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ::Credo: Latin for "I Believe". ::Freedom is a many-faceted, positive term encompassing the ability to act consciously, in a well-balanced manner and with self control in a given constructive direction. The biggest restraints come from the self: ignorance, which leads to fear, then restraint; and (also rooted in ignorance) the lack of self control. source ::Political freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination as an expression of the individual will. source :Getting back to fundamental values is deeply important to any type of discussion, not just political. Cooperation is an important virtue as well, as is Critical Thinking, at least according to the Wikipedia article. :There is nothing preventing your values statements combining and cooperating with my own, except a lack of vision on a way to merge them into a society that works. The limits to freedom that I would agree to depends on the situation. And I have to say that because I am not trained in law. I'm a citizen trying to express my opinion, and according to our fundamental American values here in the United States that puts me in equal standing to anyone else. ::We probably don't agree on the details of what those limits to freedom should be. So let's talk about some examples. :You look for justifications to limit a person's freedom, and I look for ways to prevent harm. I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Chadlupkes 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) :::Let us assume that we take a fundamental value “to prevent harm” and build a political system on it. Who and how would determine harm? :::In fact, there were political systems built on this concept. In particular, Nazis in Germany believed that the German society suffered due to Jewish conspiracy. To prevent this harm they killed 6 million Jews. :::Show me an example when respect for individuals’ freedoms led to atrocities.--HAK 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ::::Whenever corporations claim "individual" status and the freedoms of the 14th amendment, their requirement to earn profits trumps the needs for workers to earn a living wage and provide for their families. Having 47 million people in this country without access to Health Care is an atrocity. Having several million people in the US undergoing "food insecurity" is an atrocity. ::::Nazi Germany is a horrific example, and incredibly insulting, honestly. If anyone is harmed by a decision, it was not the best decision. Decisions are made that we are not proud of, whether they be the economic decisions that led to the US Civil War, the judicial decisions that led to corporations being able to claim the precendent of personhood status, or legislative decisions that undermine our basic civil rights. Individual rights for one do not and should never trump the rights of others, and agreeing on what those rights are is the basis of law. If someone earns a Billion dollars in a year at the expense of people who can't keep food on their tables, am I talking about a rediculous fringe example, or am I talking about an example based in the reality of what our Health Care CEO's earn and the situation in Africa? Whose "rights" are being protected, and whose are being ignored? Do people have the "right" to food, water and shelter? Do people have a "right" to keep a Billion dollars in an off-shore tax shelter? Do rights depend on where people live and whether they salute this flag or that flag? ::::I'm talking about obligation to our fellow man. I'm talking about opportunity denied through the claim of "individual rights" that do more harm than good. I'm fighting against Imperialism, whether that means military, financial or anything else. Nations do not have rights. Governments do not have rights. Corporations and collections of capital do not have rights. If individuals have rights by your statement, then let's decide what constitutes the basis of happiness, and start providing the basics to everyone who needs them. If government is the best way of doing that, fine. If NGO's are the best way, fine. Whatever is the best way, the only factor in the review of decisions is their results. And I'm not pleased when I see the results of the current policy decisions based on the "individual rights trumps everything" mentality. ::::Want more? Bring it. I'm defending my values. Chadlupkes 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) :::::There are many problems in our country; you listed a few. You forgot to bring any arguments indicating how these problems are caused by respecting freedoms of individuals. In my opinion, it is easier to prove opposite thesis that most of these problems originate from too many restrictions put on personal liberties.--HAK 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) :Which restrictions? And on which liberties? You're asking me for specifics. Quid Pro Quo. Chadlupkes 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ::::I brought one example where consequently executed “to prevent harm” rule led to atrocities. By the way, the same rule put witches on stakes and American soldiers in Iraq. By disproving your rule in one instance, I disproved it at all. ::::Bring just one instance that you can explain how a consequent execution of equal freedoms for every individual, with as few limitations as possible, led to atrocities or any other form of a social cataclysm. If you can do it, you can prove me wrong, as well as those several fellows often called the Founding Fathers.--HAK 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC) :::::I'm really confused. The Nazi's put people to death. That's causing harm. The Puritans put women to death in the 1690's. (My family was part of that stupid land war.) That's causing harm. You can't "prevent harm" by causing harm, and at the same time call yourself a civilized culture. "To prevent harm to the United States, let's kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and 3,000 American Soldiers." That's insanity and criminal. That's Empire, where harm to some is considered justified by the saving of others. That's Malthusian, where we ignore 90% of our true resources and just fight over and with the 10% of our brainpower that we decide to actually use. None of us can assume that we are more qualified to live than anyone else. That's a false notion, and it puts us against them to the death. Aren't we tired of that yet? :::::I'm not saying that your statements are false and mine are true. I'm asking the question what policy decisions can we make where all four sentances are considered valid parts of our core beliefs and values. How can we work together to create law and build infrastructure such that individual rights are protected at the same time we work together towards a positive future? :::::What I want to get beyond is the idea that either your statements will be used to build that future, or mine will be, but we can't use both at the same time. Why is it always either/or? Why can't we use the word and? Chadlupkes 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Let us approach this issue from a different angle. We all are harmed all the time, some less some more. In your “to prevent harm” approach, you have to realize that we cannot prevent all the harm, to all the people, all the time. A decision need to be made from how much harm and whom should be prevented. In other words, someone needs to make a decision how much harm is allowed and to whom. Who and how should decide how much harm is good for me? --HAK 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC) :Ok, I can answer that. I decide. As an adult, I have the authority to decide for myself where I live, thus what kind of harm I'm willing to accept due to the weather; I have the ability to decide what I eat in order to be as healthy as I can be. Nobody is arguing against that fundamental reality. :And, at the same time, I don't have the ability to control who owns the house next to mine. I can only afford one. So I want to create a relationship with my neighbor in order to get a sense of how much I can trust him, and so he/she can gain a sense of trust with me. At the same time, I don't grow my own food, so I have to trust the farmer that grows the food, the delivery company that transports it to the store I shop at, and the retailer that I spend my money at. I have to trust them that they will do their jobs to the best of their ability and that they are providing healthy food for me to buy and eat. And if nobody ever got sick from E.Coli, or nobody was ever hurt by a neighbor, we wouldn't have much to worry about. But people do. :In addition, having choices available to me doesn't mean that I automatically know what the best decision is. To have that, I need to have an education that provides me with the tools necessary to make that decision. Critical thinking is a skill that is learned, not something that we are born with. If we are given those tools, then we can make the individual decisions that we make every day in order to minimize the harm that we do to ourselves and to the community and world around us. Without those tools, our decisions will be poor decisions, and capable of doing a lot of harm. :The goal should be to prevent harm. But that's an impossible goal, because everything is based on individual decisions, and sometimes those decisions cause harm no matter which way we go. But it takes a community to provide the foundation for us to make good decisions to minimize the harm that we do to others and to ourselves. That's why a community is so important. Chadlupkes 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 2% for and 98% but The first paragraph of your statement, answers my questions. No more explanation is necessary. However, you kept writing putting some “but” into your answer. Therefore, the question is, is the first paragraph your answer, or is your real answer in the “but” part of your statement? I would love to see examples of a practical implementation of your directive: “''But it takes a community to provide the foundation for us to make good decisions to minimize the harm that we do to others and to ourselves''.”--HAK 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) :Ok, so you're a farmer, a doctor, a military strategist, a fisherman, a steel worker and a father, and you can provide everything that your family needs to survive and thrive? :I'm not a doctor. I depended on the skills that doctors have to survive Cancer in 2003. I made the decision to delegate the authority on what treatments I would have done based on recommendations from two different doctors, both professionals. But I didn't design the drugs that were pumped into my body, do the tests necessary to prove those drugs work, or provide the nursing services. I didn't do my own surgery to plug in a cathetor so I could avoid the damage that the drugs would have done to my arteries. :In a theoretical universe, individuals can provide all their own needs, and can make all good decisions. We live in reality. Individuals can survive, but it takes a community to thrive. Nothing that I have ever seen has been able to disprove that. Chadlupkes 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Not on the subject You sway away. You try to prove that living in community is better than in solitude. No one ever questioned this. The question is about fundamental values that define rules of social life. You permanently dodge the question how community would execute “''to prevent harm''” rule. Can we agree at least that this rule can be phrased in other words as that “''society needs to make a decision how much harm is allowed and to whom''”? --HAK 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) :We establish laws moving social norms into law. Those laws are drafted to prevent people from harming themselves or others. :I'll agree to that phrasing. Strict definitions aside, I consider society and community to be equivalent terms for the same thing. Chadlupkes 07:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) ::I take issue with the statement that moving social norms into law prevents harm. Examples of this that come to mind for me are enforcing segregation and, more contemporarily, outlawing same-sex marriage, neither of which prevents harm nearly as necessarily or copiously as they cause it. A law should protect individuals' rights, but enforcing a social norm only denies the right of an individual to act outside that norm. That's harm in my book. --whosawhatsis? 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC) :::Point. That was bad phrasing. What I was trying to say is that legislatures study a problem, explore possible solutions, and move things that should be done into rules that must be followed. Chadlupkes 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 1984 You say that “''legislatures study a problem, explore possible solutions, and move things that should be done into rules that must be followed''”. I other words, as we agreed that we cannot avoid all the harm all the time, the dose of my harm is to be decided by a collective body. It contradicts your previous answer, which I correctly identified as representing only 2% of your true believes. Long before Polish (First) Republic, before Enlightenment, and before U.S. Constitution, ancient Romans used to say: “''Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia''”. Do not you see that your fundamental value is taken alive from “1984”? --HAK 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) :There's a fundamental flaw in your premise here. In a Constitutionally limited Democratically elected Republic, the people are the government. The people select those individuals who represent their values and with the skills and experience to make good decisions based on those values and experience. We don't elect leaders, and we sure as heck don't elect deciders. We elect representatives, even to the Executive branch. If they don't represent our views and make decisions that we approve of, we throw them out and put in new people. :Just what do you think I'm hiding in that 98% that you think I'm holding back? Chadlupkes 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC) How to allocate harm? You mix two things, the way the society operates, and the fundamental values that guide people when making decisions affecting others. In my view, the freedom of individual is unalienable right. Every time when a social rule is made, it means some limitation of liberties at least of some individuals. Therefore, in my approach, every new rule needs to be justified by a need to protect liberties, safety, or a property of other individuals, as all individuals should have the same rights. Furthermore, every time when a social problem comes for consideration, I first look if any existing rule could cause the problem. In other words, before creating new rules and establishing bureaucracies to execute them - when solving a problem, I first look for possibilities to solve the problem by eliminating some of the existing rules, and by giving more freedom to individuals. Please explain it to me how it works in your system, when in case of a problem, a collective body deliberates on how to allocate unavoidable harm. BTW, “''Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia''” translates into “''Senators are good men, however Senate is a malicious animal''”. --HAK 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)